Rand Paul announces Presidential Run 2016 (1 Viewer)

[squistion]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-27/rand-paul-defends-drone-killings-of-americans-in-al-qaeda

Rand Paul Defends Drone Killings of Americans in Al Qaeda

In the days after the Obama administration revealed that drone strikes had killed two Americans fighting with Al Qaedaas well as an American and an Italian hostageKentucky Senator Rand Paul remained fairly quiet. The Republican presidential candidate released a short statement about the death of the hostage but said nothing about the killings of Adam Gadahn and Ahmed Farouq. He did not address them in his weekend speech to the Iowa Faith & Freedom summit or in a couple of campaign stops in the state.

On Monday, finally, Paul was pressed on drones by the hosts of Fox and Friends. He did not take the chance to criticize the strikes.

"I do think that there is a valuable use for drones and as much as Im seen as an opponent of drones, in military and warfare, they do have some value, Paul said. I think this is a difficult situation. You have hostages being held; some of them are American. You have people holding hostages; some of them are American. Ive been an opponent of using drones about people not in combat. However if you are holding hostages, you kind of are involved in combat. So I look at it the way it is in the United States. If there's a kidnapping in New York, the police don't have to have a warrant to go in."

Had Paul - whose campaign website continues selling anti-drone T-shirtsnever spoken out about drones before, this would have been a newsless answer, comparable to what other Republican candidates and politicians had been saying. But Paul has a long, dramatic record of pronouncements about drones. He's said that a drone that flew over his home would meet the business end of a shotgun. He's demanded stronger justifications from the Obama administration before it targets any American citizens. That talk has won him praise from the left and the libertarian right.

Yet on Fox, Paul declined the chance to criticize the administration. "You really don't get due process or anything like that if you are in a war zone," said Paul. "I tend not to want to blame the president for the loss of life here. I think he was trying to do the right thing."

Paul's comments perplexed Glenn Greenwald, the journalist and co-founder of The Intercept who has written extensively about drone ware. "I don't get his strategy: he's never going to attract GOP hawks, so why dilute what makes him interesting/unique?" asked Greenwald on Twitter. "If his big maverick view is now reduced to 'no drone killings of Americans on US soil,' it's hardly interesting."

 

[Quez]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-27/george-w-bush-bashes-obama-on-middle-east

Regarding his brother Jebs potential run for the presidency, Bush acknowledged that he was a political liability for Jeb, that the Bush name can be used against him, and that Americans dont like dynasties. He also said that foreign policy is going to be especially important in the presidential campaign and that the test for Republicans running will be who has got the courage to resist isolationist tendencies.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

that becomes less scary when you realize how little influence the President seems to have on the day-to-day operations of the executive branch. A lot of the executive branch seems to run itself, with career bureaucrats in charge of things, and the President just a figurehead.

Pretty much every government agency has political appointees at the top, above the career bureaucrats. The career bureaucrats at the EPA, for example, couldn't enact their preferred policies during the GW Bush administration. I think you're underestimating the impact of the President on the behavior of government agencies. I'd say that judicial nominations and executive branch nominations are among the most significant things that Presidents can do.

I couldn't remember the name of the book before, but this is what I was thinking of:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

that becomes less scary when you realize how little influence the President seems to have on the day-to-day operations of the executive branch. A lot of the executive branch seems to run itself, with career bureaucrats in charge of things, and the President just a figurehead.

Pretty much every government agency has political appointees at the top, above the career bureaucrats. The career bureaucrats at the EPA, for example, couldn't enact their preferred policies during the GW Bush administration. I think you're underestimating the impact of the President on the behavior of government agencies. I'd say that judicial nominations and executive branch nominations are among the most significant things that Presidents can do.

I couldn't remember the name of the book before, but this is what I was thinking of:http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

. This seems to be narrowly focused on certain national security decisions. Maybe it's right in those instances.

 

[3C's]

that becomes less scary when you realize how little influence the President seems to have on the day-to-day operations of the executive branch. A lot of the executive branch seems to run itself, with career bureaucrats in charge of things, and the President just a figurehead.

Pretty much every government agency has political appointees at the top, above the career bureaucrats. The career bureaucrats at the EPA, for example, couldn't enact their preferred policies during the GW Bush administration. I think you're underestimating the impact of the President on the behavior of government agencies. I'd say that judicial nominations and executive branch nominations are among the most significant things that Presidents can do.

I couldn't remember the name of the book before, but this is what I was thinking of:http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

. This seems to be narrowly focused on certain national security decisions. Maybe it's right in those instances.

Well this is reassuring: There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.

 

[Quez]

He's doing another filibuster over the Patriot Act. I can't believe so many politicians are ready to just rubber stamp this thing again after all of the NSA spying revelations these past few years.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

He's doing another filibuster over the Patriot Act. I can't believe so many politicians are ready to just rubber stamp this thing again after all of the NSA spying revelations these past few years.

Agree. So glad he's standing up to it. God bless Rand.

 

[QuizGuy66]

The grandstand's not really going to do much for this guy's hope is it?

-QG

 

[tom22406]

In an impassioned rebuke of the National Security Agency’s surveillance capabilities, Sen. Rand Paul spoke for more than 10 hours on the Senate floor Wednesday to filibuster a Patriot Act provision used to legally justify the bulk collection of telephone data. Congress faces a tight deadline to reauthorize or change the law, which expires June 1, with its Memorial Day recess starting at week’s end. Nonetheless, the candidate for the Republican presidential nomination held forth (relieved at certain points by several fellow senators). Here are some of his most notable quotes from the marathon session.

1. “I will not let the Patriot Act, the most unpatriotic of acts, go unchallenged. At the very least, we should debate. We should debate whether or not we are going to relinquish our rights, or whether or not we are going to have a full and able debate over whether or not we can live within the Constitution, or whether or not we have to go around the Constitution.”

2. “The president began this program by executive order. He should immediately end it by executive order. For over a year now, he has said the program is illegal, and yet he does nothing.”

3. “We have to decide whether our fear is going to get the better of us. Once upon a time we had a standard in our country that was ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ We’ve given up on so much. Now, people are talking about a standard that is ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.’ Think about it. Is that the standard we’re willing to live under?”

4. “Why don't we see any questions from the press? Why don't we see anybody from the media saying, ‘Mr. President, it's illegal, you started it, you are performing a program that is collecting all of the phone records from all Americans, it's been declared illegal from the second highest court in the land, why don't you stop?’”

5. “I think we've made the [collection] haystack so big, no one's ever getting through the haystack to find the needle. What we really need to do is isolate the haystack into a group of suspicious people and spend enormous resources looking at suspicious people, people who we have probable cause.”

6. “Nobody ever was fired for 9/11. Instead of firing the people who didn’t do a good job, we gave them medals. The guy who did a good job, I don’t know what happened to him. And what we did was we decided we’d just collect everybody’s information. That we’d sort of scrap the Bill of Rights.”

7. “Who gets to decide who’s an enemy combatant and who’s an American citizen? Are we really so frightened and so easily frightened that we would give up a thousand-year history?”

8. “Any time you make an analogy to horrific people in history, Mussolini or Hitler, people say, ‘Oh, you’re exaggerating, you’re talking about, it’s hyperbole.’ Maybe it is. … But I would say is that if you are not concerned that democracy could produce bad people, I don’t think you’re really thinking this through too much.”

9. “You don't know who the next group is that's unpopular. The Bill of Rights isn't for the prom queen. The Bill of Rights isn't for the high school quarterback. The Bill of Rights is for the least among us. The bill of rights is for minorities. The bill of rights is for those who have minority opinions.”

10. “In the aftermath of 9/11, the Patriot Act was rushed to the floor. Several hundred pages. Nobody read it … But people voted because they were fearful and people said there could be another attack and Americans will blame me if I don't vote on this.”

11. “Any time someone tries to tell you that metadata is ‘meaningless, don't worry, it's just who you call, it's just phone records, it's not a big deal’ -- realize we kill people based on metadata. So they must be pretty darn certain that they think they know something based on metadata.”

12. “You wonder why your government's completely broken? We lurch from deadline to deadline, and it's on purpose really. We do deadline to deadline because … ‘we've got to go. It's spring break, we're going to be late for spring break, and we've got to go, so we've got to finish this up before we go.’”

13. "Let’s say tomorrow that there was a president, that we elected a president that eliminated the bulk collection of data. Let’s just say it happened. What do you think would happen? People are like ‘the sky would fall. We would be overrun with jihadists.’ Maybe we could rely on the Constitution. Maybe we could get warrants. … If you make the warrant specific, there’s no limit to what you can get through a warrant.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/21/rand_pauls_nsa_filibuster_his_notable_quotes_126676.html

 

[bigbottom]

That's way more persuasive than Green Eggs and Ham.

 

[Amused to Death]

Not really a Rand Paul supporter but props to him for making a statement against this. 4th Amendment counts too, not just the 1st and 2nd.

 

[timschochet]

I think we've made the [collection] haystack so big, no one's ever getting through the haystack to find the needle. What we really need to do is isolate the haystack into a group of suspicious people and spend enormous resources looking at suspicious people, people who we have probable cause.”

But without the metadata, how do we accomplish this? The whole point of collecting mass emails is to run algorithms through them and try to isolate certain people based on phrasing they use. Then the NSA can take a closer look at those people and determine if they truly represent a threat. How can this be done without the metadata?

 

[SIDA!]

Tip the 40, homie.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I would have thought he would have done a little better. Where have all his father's supporters gone? I don't think the Libertarian party is any more popular and I can't see a GOP candidate that they'd prefer to Rand. I get that they weren't happy with Rand's attempt to appeal to a wider base but would that cause them not to vote at all?

 

[tom22406]

I would have thought he would have done a little better. Where have all his father's supporters gone? I don't think the Libertarian party is any more popular and I can't see a GOP candidate that they'd prefer to Rand. I get that they weren't happy with Rand's attempt to appeal to a wider base but would that cause them not to vote at all?

I was hoping Rand would gain more traction but in a party full of nutbags it really is hard to scream louder and have your voice and message be heard.Most will support Gary Johnson is my thinking and what I will do.

My hope was it would expand the Libertarian thinking and I do believe he has helped even if it is only a little.

 

[tom22406]

I also really can't see him endorsing any GOP candidate at this point even though in the end he will support whoever is left standing.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Well . . . bye

Off to defend that Senate seat, for which he suddenly has a legit challenger . . . .

 

[Quez]

He never had a chance. At least he got to get some good foreign policy stuff in the debates. When he said "Christie is your candidate if you want to start WW3" I was lmao.

He had the most common sense regarding foreign policy compared to any other candidates. Even the dems are becoming war hawks these days.

 

[Slapdash]

Why did he do so much worse than Ron Paul? Just too many other anti-establishment candidates on both sides?

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

Bummer...

 

[tom22406]

Why did he do so much worse than Ron Paul? Just too many other anti-establishment candidates on both sides?

Way too many who are trying to portray themselves as "outsiders" this time around was his biggest hurdle plus the fact that I don't believe the GOP is ready for his message.He is considered weak because of his lack of perceived strength on foreign policy,his fight against the NSA(which makes the country weaker in many eyes) and his lack of sticking with his Libertarian roots which forced many away from him.

For me though I thought this was another step in the right direction getting the message out even though it failed and will continue to fail in the near future(for President).Rand is a really smart guy who to me seems to be in the wrong party.